People v. Sutton, 91 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Sutton, 91 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
41 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Millan (nyappdiv, 1986-06-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" People v. Millan
N.Y. App. Div. · 1986 · signal: accord · confidence high
(See, Simmons v United States, 390 US, at pp 389-390; Jones v United States, 362 US, at p 261 .) "[A] defendant is required to set forth in his papers circumstances which, if admitted, would require suppression of the physical evidence.” (People v Taylor, 97 AD2d 381 ; accord, People v Sutton, 91 AD2d 522 ; see, CPL 710.20, 710.60.) As already noted, in his moving papers, defendant alleged only that a taxicab in which he was a passenger was stopped despite the absence of any "reason to believe that any of the occupants of the vehicle had committed a crime or were committing a crime at the ti…
cited Cited "see" People v. Jones
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See, however, People v Sutton, 91 AD2d 522 ; People v Taylor, 97 AD2d 381 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Corona
N.Y. App. Div. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
While the ultimate burden is upon defendant to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area of the search (see, Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 ; United States v Salvucci, 448 US 83 ; People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160 ), we have previously held that: "[Tjhe operative facts relevant on the issue may be gleaned from the record as a whole, including the account of the events offered by the police officer.” (People v Gonzalez, 115 AD2d 73, 78 , affd 68 NY2d 950 ; see also, People v Sutton, 91 AD2d 522 .) A review of the testimony at the suppression hearing reveals that Justice Davis f…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Carl Sutton
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 9, 1982.
91 A.D.2d 522
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published

— Appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Melia, J., at plea and sentence; Rothwax, J., at suppression), rendered February 4, 1980, convicting defendant, upon his plea, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him to two to four years, held in abeyance and the matter remanded for a suppression hearing. As part of an omnibus motion, defendant moved to suppress physical evidence pursuant to CPL 710.60. The motion was predicated upon the affirmation of defense counsel. The defense counsel stated that, upon information and belief, defendant was seized by the police as he was walking down the street. The defense counsel stated that his client was unlawfully arrested before the gun was seized. The Assistant District Attorney (ADA) submitted an affirmation in response to the omnibus motion. To the extent here relevant, the ADA alleged, upon information and belief, that two officers received a radio run that a man had a gun at a particular location. According to the ADA, the officers observed that defendant and two other individuals fit the description of those mentioned in the- radio run. Upon seeing the officers, defendant purportedly ran and tossed the gun away. The gun was then recovered and defendant was arrested. The suppression court denied this branch of the motion to suppress the gun on the ground that defendant never stated that the gun was in his possession. Thus, defendant was found to lack standing upon the motion. Parenthetically, it should be noted that defense counsel refused the court’s offer to submit a supplemental affidavit on this issue. Since the police officer’s version of the occurrence confirms the fact that defendant was, at one point, in possession of the gun, he had standing to challenge the propriety of the police conduct. It should be stressed that both sides rested upon affirmations drawn upon information and belief. Neither the police officers nor defendant submitted an affidavit reciting the circumstances surrounding the arrest. While defense counsel’s affirmation could have been more specific, we find it adequate to place in question the lawfulness of the police conduct attendant upon the arrest of defendant and seizure of the gun. We thus hold this appeal in abeyance and remand the matter for a suppression hearing. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Bloom and Milonas, JJ.